Wedding Photography:
sax...@hwsys.com
INTERNET: NATH...@CRL.CO Wrote:
: I did see a real live wedding pro have a Hassy for his main
: camera, and a P&S for his backup. 8-)
N-> This brings up a point. My very good friend had a wedding
N-> photographer who used a Hasselblad. He was very personable and
N-> was well liked. I assumed his photos were going to come out
N-> spectacular. I shot some of the wedding with my Nikons, but not
N-> so much as to take away from what my friend hired the other
N-> photographer for......
N->
N->
N-> After the wedding, it was tell tale time and I gave them some of
N-> my prints for a wedding gift. They came out sharp and contrasty.
N-> They also gave the spirit of how the wedding really was. Then I
N-> looked at the wedding photographer's photos. I have to admit that
N-> this was THE FIRST TIME I had ever seen a BAD photo come out of a
N-> Hasselblad. In fact, I didn't think it was possible. Not only
N-> were the photos UNDEREXPOSED, but they were also OUT OF FOCUS!
N-> AAAACCCCKKKKK! I was very thankful, as were the groom and bride,
N-> that I took photos that came out or their entire wedding album
N-> would have been down the drain.
About a year ago I had the brother of a close friend approach me
about shooting his wedding for him. I had done my friends wedding
for free, and now his brother was inquiring about my services
- BUT - asked me to quote him a price for the job. I felt quite
awkward about the situation, hmmmmed and hawwwwed alot ,and then
blurted out $350.00. His main concern seemed to be that he was
able to get the NEGATIVES as part of the deal and I agreed. So,
feeling awkward still, I set about doing a proper job of it.
I procured a BRONICA S2-A and a METZ flash unit for the formal
work, and used my NIKON 8008 outfit for backup and candid stuff.
I hired a friend to be my assistant - to carry film and help with
on-the-fly reloading - and to carry whichever camera I wasn't
shooting. I used 10 rolls of REALA 120, and 10 rolls of KODAK
ULTRA 400 35mm (provided by the customer, in addition to my fee).
It all worked out just peachy. Or so I thought.
Though this BRONICA was borrowed from a friend, I had owned one
just like it for many years and never had ANY problems with it. I
also was told that this one had been used recently and checked
out just fine - by a man that used to own one of the most
successful local photo store's in Orange County California.
About HALF of the 120 that I shot was out of focus - BADLY out of
focus !!!! I NEVER had anything as bad as this before except
maybe those times when the shutter accidentally got pushed while
the camera was pointing at my feet! To make matters worse, I shot
a second job (promo for a band I'm in) that weekend and ALL of
those exposures were soft (even with the camera tripod mounted
and using the built in magnifier for critical focus). The camera
is equipped with an 80mm NIKKOR lens, and the shots that were in
focus were sharp as a tack, so I know that's not the problem.
The best I can figure is that the reflex mirror was not returning
to the same position after each exposure, making the focus quite
variable. I'm sure there could be some other mechanism for this
failure, but I could not find it. I checked the ground glass and
it was solidly mounted....the pressure plate seemed to hold the
film reliably against the focal plane ..... ?????
At any rate, the whole point was that in this case, my 35mm stuff
saved the day much the same as Nathan's story, except that I was
both "the good photographer AND the bad photographer".
Oh ...also ... I mentioned that I had shot a wedding for my good
friend ....I did that one on 35mm only (OLYMPUS OM-1 and VIVITAR
28-85 zoom), and they were more than pleased even with the 20 x 24
and 11 x 14s that we had made.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş sax...@hwsys.com (Everett Carroll) Garden Grove, Ca USA
Nathan Wong
: About a year ago I had the brother of a close friend approach me
: about shooting his wedding for him. I had done my friends wedding
: for free, and now his brother was inquiring about my services
: - BUT - asked me to quote him a price for the job. I felt quite
: awkward about the situation, hmmmmed and hawwwwed alot ,and then
: blurted out $350.00. His main concern seemed to be that he was
: able to get the NEGATIVES as part of the deal and I agreed. So,
: feeling awkward still, I set about doing a proper job of it.
I would have done the "hmmmmmed and hawwwed" bit myself. $350 for the
job is REALLY LOW considering what the normal wedding shoot would cost
him. Also, one thing you never do is give out the negatives because
that's your insurance that you'll make money later on.
: I procured a BRONICA S2-A and a METZ flash unit for the formal
: work, and used my NIKON 8008 outfit for backup and candid stuff.
: I hired a friend to be my assistant - to carry film and help with
: on-the-fly reloading - and to carry whichever camera I wasn't
: shooting. I used 10 rolls of REALA 120, and 10 rolls of KODAK
: ULTRA 400 35mm (provided by the customer, in addition to my fee).
: It all worked out just peachy. Or so I thought.
Boy, you went out and hired people and borrowed (rent?) a camera?
I would have called the groom up later and tell him that you had to
include costs of the other things along with the $350 you were charging.
Film is expensive.
: Though this BRONICA was borrowed from a friend, I had owned one
oh, you borrorwed it.
: just like it for many years and never had ANY problems with it. I
: also was told that this one had been used recently and checked
: out just fine - by a man that used to own one of the most
: successful local photo store's in Orange County California.
Ah, the ol' "it's okay" line. I had a lens fixed by a camera repair guy
and he insisted that F/22 was perfect. I KNEW it wasn't right, but he
kept insisting. When I brought it home F/22 was actually f/8! UGH!
: About HALF of the 120 that I shot was out of focus - BADLY out of
: focus !!!! I NEVER had anything as bad as this before except
....
: and using the built in magnifier for critical focus). The camera
: is equipped with an 80mm NIKKOR lens, and the shots that were in
: focus were sharp as a tack, so I know that's not the problem.
Interesting.
Otto Burgess
Only because they don't know what a 20x24 from a 645, 66, or 67 neg would be
like.
Never, I mean never, use equipment for a job untill you have tested it first.
--
|---------------------------------------------------
|
|INFINITE DIVERSITY IN INFINITE COMBINATIONS
|
|
|Otto Burgess
|(513) 865 - 1024
|Mead Data Central
|P.O. Box 933
|Dayton, Ohio 45401
|
|ot...@meaddata.com
Oleg Volokhonsky
8^)-->: focus !!!! I NEVER had anything as bad as this before except
8^)-->.....
8^)-->: and using the built in magnifier for critical focus). The camera
8^)-->: is equipped with an 80mm NIKKOR lens, and the shots that were in
8^)-->: focus were sharp as a tack, so I know that's not the problem.
8^)-->
8^)-->Interesting.
Mis aligned or wobbly focusing screen?
--
Click, click, whirr...slap!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New collection of graphics at MCAD Gopher under Sample Color images/1994
If you have problems accessing it, e-mail and i will send you files ( specify
color depth, format )
x93...@wmich.edu
Nathan Wong writes...
: About a year ago I had the brother of a close friend approach me
: about shooting his wedding for him. I had done my friends wedding
: for free, and now his brother was inquiring about my services
: - BUT - asked me to quote him a price for the job. I felt quite
: awkward about the situation, hmmmmed and hawwwwed alot ,and then
: blurted out $350.00. His main concern seemed to be that he was
: able to get the NEGATIVES as part of the deal and I agreed.
> I would have done the "hmmmmmed and hawwwed" bit myself. $350 for the
> job is REALLY LOW considering what the normal wedding shoot would cost
> him. Also, one thing you never do is give out the negatives because
> that's your insurance that you'll make money later on.
That's the low-point of pros... keep the negs and charge a lot for
reprints, etc. And talk about memories... wonder what will happen
when you return to them and ask them for reprints 25 years later?!
Sometimes it pays to just have your friends do the job. And some
can do a better job than some so-called 'pros'.
Why's everyone in the photography business... equipment retailers,
camera manufacturers, professional photographers, etc... all out
to rip $$$ off people... really spoils a fine art.
Adrian Chew :)
Yuan 'Hacker' Chang
On a related subject: any recommendation of a super fast film with
properties much like NHG or VPH? I just had a church wedding recently
where strobes weren't allowed during the ceremony, and my own lighting
equipment was out of the question (since I don't own any! 8). I doubted
the pastor would have allowed them anyway. It was very dark in there
(about EV 3-5 @ ISO400), and really no place to set up tripods. Would
pushing both VPH and NHG by one or two stops give agreeable results?
I'd imagine this to be not too uncommon problem for weddings. How do
you get around the problem?
--
Yuan Chang "What can go wrong, did"
Disguise: The displaced Barbarian from Hawaii
InterNet: cha...@cs.odu.Edu "Wouldn't you like to
PhoneNet: (804) 423-2079 be an _ A_ m_ i_ g_ o_ i_ d too?!?"
sax...@hwsys.com
sax...@hwsys.com wrote:
: About a year ago I had the brother of a close friend approach me
: about shooting his wedding for him. I had done my friends wedding
NT-> I would have done the "hmmmmmed and hawwwed" bit myself. $350
NT-> for the job is REALLY LOW considering what the normal wedding
NT-> shoot would cost him. Also, one thing you never do is give out
NT-> the negatives because that's your insurance that you'll make
NT-> money later on.
I know, but this was sort of a favor thing. The brother of my
best friend. Ya know.
: I procured a BRONICA S2-A and a METZ flash unit for the formal
NT-> Boy, you went out and hired people and borrowed (rent?) a camera?
NT-> I would have called the groom up later and tell him that you had
NT-> to include costs of the other things along with the $350 you were
NT-> charging. Film is expensive.
Borrowed the camera from a friend, and the groom bought the film
over and above the $350.00 he paid for my services.
mike...@austin.ibm.com
>
> That's the low-point of pros... keep the negs and charge a lot for
> reprints, etc. And talk about memories... wonder what will happen
> when you return to them and ask them for reprints 25 years later?!
>
> Sometimes it pays to just have your friends do the job. And some
> can do a better job than some so-called 'pros'.
>
> Why's everyone in the photography business... equipment retailers,
> camera manufacturers, professional photographers, etc... all out
> to rip $$$ off people... really spoils a fine art.
>
> Adrian Chew :)
Do you know how much work you have to do to cover a wedding, and how much stress
there in doing it? It is hard and stressful. Don't count on reprints 25 years
later if you are using color (probably be divorced anyway). After processing
bills and film bills are paid, and all the work is done do you know how much per
hour you can make? Not that much. Not even counting all that other stuff like
equipment replacement and repair sinking fund or cost of borrowing money (if you
can) to replace and repair equipment.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Robert Slugg
country. Compared to the rantings of Adrian Chew, my boss now seems
quite humble, and our work motto is, "often wrong, never in doubt."
Adrian, there are several reasons we charge big $$$.
1) We are worth it
2) We are worth it
3) We are worth it
Its much harder to make money at photography than to be a poor
photographer, make no money, and claim to be an artist first. You can
keep your principles, I'll go to the bank. Why is it the "artists"
haven't put us out of business? I suspect its the product, not the sales
pitch.
Bob
--
Robert M. Slugg Meyer 5-109 Johns Hopkins Hospital fax (410) 955-1032
rsl...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
We're all here because we aren't all there
Steve Wall
(Yuan 'Hacker' Chang) wrote:
> On a related subject: any recommendation of a super fast film with
> properties much like NHG or VPH? I just had a church wedding recently
> where strobes weren't allowed during the ceremony, and my own lighting
> equipment was out of the question (since I don't own any! 8). I doubted
> the pastor would have allowed them anyway. It was very dark in there
> (about EV 3-5 @ ISO400), and really no place to set up tripods. Would
> pushing both VPH and NHG by one or two stops give agreeable results?
>
If you really need the extra speed, Fuji Super G 800 is probably your
best bet. If 400 speed is OK, Kodak's new Pro 400MC is probably the
best thing since sliced bread. Denis Reggie swears by it, and he's one
of the hottest wedding photographers in the business.
--
Steve Wall
Lim Francis Tinseng
>reprints, etc. And talk about memories... wonder what will happen
>when you return to them and ask them for reprints 25 years later?!
Over here in Singapore, the "Pros" usually keep the negatives but after 3
years you can go and request for them. That may be a good compromise.
--
LIM, Francis Tinseng. Francis T Lim. Singapore.
Internet: fra...@singnet.com.sg
x93...@wmich.edu
Michael C. Dean writes...
> Do you know how much work you have to do to cover a wedding, and how much
> stress there in doing it? It is hard and stressful. Don't count on reprints
> 25 years later if you are using color (probably be divorced anyway). After
> processing bills and film bills are paid, and all the work is done do you
> know how much per hour you can make? Not that much. Not even counting all
> that other stuff like equipment replacement and repair sinking fund or
> cost of borrowing money (if you can) to replace and repair equipment.
It is a lot of work... they charge a fine ransom for the work & cost of
equipment, don't they?! But keeping negatives... I'd rather have the
negs and pay a little more to have them.
Adrian Chew :)
x93...@wmich.edu
Robert Slugg writes...
> Adrian, there are several reasons we charge big $$$.
> 1) We are worth it
> 2) We are worth it
> 3) We are worth it
I don't deny that... if people go to the right pro. Some pros are nothing
more than below-average over-equiped hence 'pro' status... they aren't
worth a dime.
> Its much harder to make money at photography than to be a poor
> photographer, make no money, and claim to be an artist first. You can
> keep your principles, I'll go to the bank. Why is it the "artists"
> haven't put us out of business? I suspect its the product, not the sales
> pitch.
I know this is very true. It isn't easy, but come on, there's a reasonable
way and the slimy way. Keeping negs & hammering the bride & groom with
blinding light aren't very nice ones. So... don't get me wrong, the high
fee is oftentimes reasonable, but other practices might not be... eg.
setting up a studio for family portraits.
And there are other options... I have a friend who's gotten requests to
do every wedding of people who know him after the first time he took
a friend's wedding, and he charges nothing but film & processing. Sometimes
not even that... he just presents the end result as a gift for the bride &
groom. And for all that hard work & no money to pocket... the payoffs are
much better. He'll always be remembered, just as photos of weddings are
kept.
Too bad there aren't enough of him around... might just run every pro
out of business if there were. Anyhow, just keep in mind that there's
more than a quick dollar in a wedding... nice photographers get remembered
and word of mouth is better than advertising.
Adrian Chew :)
Robert Slugg
friend, they sound more like a doormat to me. Since I value my work, I
don't give it away. Its that simple. Most free things tend to be
overpriced anyway.
Tanvir...@transarc.com
> I don't deny that... if people go to the right pro. Some pros are nothing
> more than below-average over-equiped hence 'pro' status... they aren't
> worth a dime.
Thats why you check out the photographer and look at the sample work
ask for references. Ever heard of references?
> I know this is very true. It isn't easy, but come on, there's a reasonable
> way and the slimy way. Keeping negs & hammering the bride & groom with
> blinding light aren't very nice ones. So... don't get me wrong, the high
> fee is oftentimes reasonable, but other practices might not be... eg.
> setting up a studio for family portraits.
I don't think so that if Groom or Bride have objected those guys would
been be able to setup studio or whatever.
> And there are other options... I have a friend who's gotten requests to
> do every wedding of people who know him after the first time he took
> a friend's wedding, and he charges nothing but film & processing. Sometimes
> not even that... he just presents the end result as a gift for the bride &
> groom. And for all that hard work & no money to pocket... the payoffs are
> much better. He'll always be remembered, just as photos of weddings are
> kept.
I am sure that friend is not trying to make a living shooting
weddings. Is your friends results better then the best photographers
out there. I am sure people pay well known photographers because a)
They don't have access to your friend. b) They can produce better
results then your friend with a brand new A2. Or are you suggesting
that all the photographers should begin doing weddings free? I have
heard all kind of stupid arguments but this tops them all. Does not
hurt to engage the brain before....
Wedding photography is a luxry. It is not something life sustaining
like food or medicine that we can really complain that it is too
expensive. I believe photographers should charge whatever maximum
they feel they are worth in sprit of luxries (depending upon the
market and skill). They should never should even think about that
they are charging public too much if the requests keeps comming in.
> Too bad there aren't enough of him around... might just run every pro
> out of business if there were. Anyhow, just keep in mind that there's
> more than a quick dollar in a wedding... nice photographers get remembered
> and word of mouth is better than advertising.
So why you wanna see photographers go out of bussiness because they
are making a living? What is wrong with making a dollar?
Tanvir
Mark Ashley
>That's the low-point of pros... keep the negs and charge a lot for
>reprints, etc. And talk about memories... wonder what will happen
>when you return to them and ask them for reprints 25 years later?!
Some pros throw away the stuff after a few years.
The length of time that pros keep the negatives is not
usually part of the contract (aside from the customary 2 to 4 years).
>Sometimes it pays to just have your friends do the job. And some
>can do a better job than some so-called 'pros'.
Sometimes. Furthermore, you get what you pay for ... most of the time.
>Why's everyone in the photography business... equipment retailers,
>camera manufacturers, professional photographers, etc... all out
>to rip $$$ off people... really spoils a fine art.
Now you're growing up 8-)
Museums are not out there to go bankrupt either 8-)
Furthermore, photography during weddings contains only a little
bit of artistry -- it's mostly documentation (of the event).
x93...@wmich.edu
Mark writes...
:>Why's everyone in the photography business... equipment retailers,
:>camera manufacturers, professional photographers, etc... all out
:>to rip $$$ off people... really spoils a fine art.
> Now you're growing up 8-)
> Museums are not out there to go bankrupt either 8-)
> Furthermore, photography during weddings contains only a little
> bit of artistry -- it's mostly documentation (of the event).
Some people will argue that photojournalism is an art! Documentation
can be very sterile, or it can be an art too... depends on how you
approach it. Approach a wedding with documentation... that's where
the flash blasting & getting each & every event recorded on film
right comes at the expense of the bride & groom... and that spoils
a wedding.
Apporoach a wedding with art... and you'll see a whole lot more. In
many parts of the world... shooting a wedding just for purely artistic
reasons has many appeals. A wedding has lots of culture & traditions
involved in many countries.
On a similar note, you can call National Geographic documentation or
art... but they sure have got great nature photos either way.
Adrian Chew :)
x93...@wmich.edu
Tanvir writes...
:> I don't deny that... if people go to the right pro. Some pros are nothing
:> more than below-average over-equiped hence 'pro' status... they aren't
:> worth a dime.
> Thats why you check out the photographer and look at the sample work
> ask for references. Ever heard of references?
Sometimes the portfolio belongs to a boss... and now he's getting his
new apprentices to do the job. References... yes, and they're the best
way to check a pro out.
:> I know this is very true. It isn't easy, but come on, there's a reasonable
:> way and the slimy way. Keeping negs & hammering the bride & groom with
:> blinding light aren't very nice ones. So... don't get me wrong, the high
:> fee is oftentimes reasonable, but other practices might not be... eg.
:> setting up a studio for family portraits.
> I don't think so that if Groom or Bride have objected those guys would
> been be able to setup studio or whatever.
Maybe the groom & bride didn't know, or didn't want to make a big fuss
about it... especially since its their WEDDING!!!
:> And there are other options... I have a friend who's gotten requests to
:> do every wedding of people who know him after the first time he took
:> a friend's wedding, and he charges nothing but film & processing.
:> ...
> I am sure that friend is not trying to make a living shooting
> weddings. Is your friends results better then the best photographers
> out there.
Among the best I've seen and better than some.
> I am sure people pay well known photographers because
> a) They don't have access to your friend.
True, but they might know someone just as good.
> b) They can produce better results then your friend with a brand new A2.
If they were using medium format maybe the could. But shooting with the
same equipment... at best it'd be a tie.
> Or are you suggesting that all the photographers should begin doing
> weddings free? I have heard all kind of stupid arguments but this tops
> them all. Does not hurt to engage the brain before....
It isn't stupid. And I'm not saying all photographers should be doing
weddings free. But...
1) Do a wedding for a friend free... it can really be much more rewarding
than getting paid for it.
2) There's an honest way to make a dollar... and lots of dishonest ways.
Think about it... cheating & conning is an art more developed today
than photography.
> Wedding photography is a luxry. It is not something life sustaining
> like food or medicine that we can really complain that it is too
> expensive. I believe photographers should charge whatever maximum
> they feel they are worth in sprit of luxries (depending upon the
> market and skill). They should never should even think about that
> they are charging public too much if the requests keeps comming in.
Not saying they shouldn't. But a little more respect for the bride &
groom is in order. Setting up a studio to make extra cash isn't a
very nice thing... and they are already charging a premium, as you
say. Never said it ain't worth it, just some of their practices shouldn't
be. Honestly, I'd rather send the negatives back to them, to gain quality
custom reprints even though the price is higher. They don't have to hang
on to the negatives.
> So why you wanna see photographers go out of bussiness because they
> are making a living? What is wrong with making a dollar?
Nope... just saying that there's many ways to make a dollar, and
some aren't very nice ones.
Adrian Chew :)
Tanvir...@transarc.com
> Honestly, I'd rather send the negatives back to them, to gain quality
> custom reprints even though the price is higher. They don't have to hang
> on to the negatives.
Why they should not hang on to the negatives? They are not working
for hire only as a contractor. They images are copyrighted. Why they
should give up their rights when some wrong trend is in progress?
Of course you can come up with hundred of examples of wrong doings of
photographer. Photographer can come up with thousands of examples too
where the couple try to ditch them. That still does not mean that
photographer and couple should (and in our argument the photographer
right of owning the negatives) give up their respective rights.
Tanvir
Mark Ashley
MA> Museums are not out there to go bankrupt either 8-)
MA> Furthermore, photography during weddings contains only a little
MA> bit of artistry -- it's mostly documentation (of the event).
AC>x93...@wmich.edu writes:
AC>Some people will argue that photojournalism is an art! Documentation
AC>can be very sterile, or it can be an art too... depends on how you
AC>approach it.
Right. You can shoot an artistic shot of the Rwanda events
or you can shoot a non-artistic technically perfect shot.
Either way, you still have to produce a good picture for
your editor if they asked you to come up with pictures
for the front page.
AC>Approach a wedding with documentation... that's where
AC>the flash blasting & getting each & every event recorded on film
AC>right comes at the expense of the bride & groom... and that spoils
AC>a wedding.
Try forgetting to take a shot of key parts of the wedding
and you'll have one pair of pissed off clients. You can take
artistic wedding shots but you do not do it at the cost of
missing or distorting other key shots.
AC>Apporoach a wedding with art... and you'll see a whole lot more. In
AC>many parts of the world... shooting a wedding just for purely artistic
AC>reasons has many appeals. A wedding has lots of culture & traditions
AC>involved in many countries.
It seems to me that in this case you want some cultural shots
rather than the standard wedding scenario that we're talking
about. Sure, take those romantic shots of other culture's
wedding ceremonies. Satisfy your romantic fantasies in those
cases.
But if a couple hires you to take pictures of their wedding,
you will have to move your ass and shoot the key parts of the
wedding, romantic or unromantic, spectacular or not.
Artistic talent will separate the great wedding pros from the
merely technically proficient pro. But the minimum requirement
for both types is that they can take pictures. Both will have
to shoot the cutting of the cake, the first dance, the tossing
of the boquet, etc...
AC>On a similar note, you can call National Geographic documentation or
AC>art... but they sure have got great nature photos either way.
That depends on why you say they're great. Is it because
the pictures are artistic or is it because the subject
themselves are spectacular ? The two can come together
of course, but too many critics cannot differentiate
between spectacular subjects and spectacular photos
(i.e. the interpretation). And not all NG's photos
are artistic either. Some are pure documentation
so that the subject is shown precisely. Does it matter
much to me ? No. Because I read NG to get accurate
text and pictures. I am not disappointed if there are
no shots that are mere interpretations of the subject.
There are other types of journals for that.
Do yourself a favor. If you ever get married, don't hire
a wedding photographer. Save yourself and the pro the
aggravation.
sax...@hwsys.com
BS-> Some may see someone who shoots wedding after wedding for free as
BS-> a good friend, they sound more like a doormat to me. Since I
BS-> value my work, I don't give it away. Its that simple. Most free
BS-> things tend to be overpriced anyway.
BS->
BS-> Bob
BS->
BS-> --
BS-> Robert M. Slugg Meyer 5-109 Johns Hopkins Hospital fax (410) 955-1032
BS-> rsl...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
The weddings that **I** have shot for free have been for good
friends. Actually , there was only one for free (for my best
friend), and one for $350.00 plus expenses (for the brother of my
best friend).
Photography is **NOT** the way I make my living. It has been in
the past, but not anymore. If it was my current profession, the
way I handled these situations would have been different :
The best friend's wedding would have still been free, with better
coverage.... and his brother's wedding would have cost a lot
more, probably also with better coverage (and a working MF camera
!).
BTW , Bob ...... do you realize that your initials are B.S. ????
---
ţ SLMR 2.1a ţ sax...@hwsys.com (Everett Carroll) Garden Grove, Ca USA
Bhiksha Raj
|>
|> Artistic talent will separate the great wedding pros from th
|> a wedding photographer. Save yourself and the pro the
|> aggravation.
|>
|>
erm..
I remember reading in a FAQ that this is a strictly non-flame group. Then what is
this stuff above doing here???
Gentlemen, if you have anything to say that relates to the topic on hand and
photography in general, feel free to say it.
Please keep your personal impressions/feelings about ppl etc, to yourself or
commmunicate it thru email. The rest of us here are not interested in it.
Anyway..
I think it is possible (within limitations) to be both artistic and docmuentary
while taking a photograph.
You could take all the photographs a wedding warrants AND try to have them
as artistic as possible.
If one is reasonably familiar with the wedding routine, one could attempt to
compose the photographs for the best possible results.
I guess that would be the difference between a picture that simply documents
the event and a picture that evokes nostalgia.
I'm no expert at this, but I figure the pros have a better shot at this kind
of stuff, simply because they have worked at so many more weddings and know
what kind of situations to expect and what angles give the best pictures.
That is, of course, provided they have their heads screwed on right.
Just my $0.02..
bhiksha
Rudi Theunis
> reprints, etc. And talk about memories... wonder what will happen
> when you return to them and ask them for reprints 25 years later?!
Sorry, I have to react to this. As a professional photographer (this means I
have to make a living out of photography) I keep all the negatives of the
weddings I do. This is not because I want to 'charge a lot' for reprints (for
reprints, I charge the same as a costumer would pay for a professional reprint
of his own negatives), but for some other reasons :
1. I've made the photo's, and I have the copyrights to all the photo's
2. If I make a reprint, I know it will be done in a professional way, so the
pictures will be 'good'. If I should give away the negatives, anybody could
make a reprint and (as everybody knows) not all printing shops do a good job...
3. I don't know how much a 'wedding' is charged for elsewhere, but due to the
fact that there are a lot of photographers in Belgium (especialy in here in
Limburg), and due to the fact there are a lot of non-professional photographers,
prices of a complete wedding coverage are about 15.000,- BFr (+/ - 450 US$). If
you take in account all the costs I have (camera, films, filmdevelopment,
prints, enlargements, album, driving to and from...) and the time I have to
spend making the coverage and composing the album, you might guess that I don't
earn a lot on such a reportage... So I think I have the right to have something
on the reprints as well...
About the other thing.... I keep all negatives, and even after 25 years, you
can come to me and ask for a reprint (if the color film is still printable after
25 years). On the other hand, I KNOW this is rarely done... Why ? Well, mostly,
if one wants a reprint after some time, one takes the original photo to a
photographer and ask for a repro.... (I know this from experience)... And
it's not different for photo's made by friends or relatives. (of course there
are exeptions, I know!).
Another thing, you don't expect to get the negatives for a portrait, do you? So
why should it be different wedding photo's ?
> Sometimes it pays to just have your friends do the job. And some
> can do a better job than some so-called 'pros'.
You're right to some hight... As I said, I'm a professional photographer and I
know there are some verry good non-professionals (who are better than a lot of
pro's I know). BUT... I've often heard of wedding photo's which failed because
of mistakes of the photographer (more often wit non-pro's than with pro's). If
this happens, then you don't have anything to look at, after the marriage...
Chances something goes wrong are practicaly non-existing when you get yourself a
well established photographer which you know works with a good photolab or who
processes the film him/herself.
> Why's everyone in the photography business... equipment retailers,
> camera manufacturers, professional photographers, etc... all out
> to rip $$$ off people... really spoils a fine art.
Another thing I have to disagree with (to some degree that is). I retail
equipment to. I'll tell you how much I earn on a compact camera : it's 10%. If
I sell a SLR, this is even less... Mayby you think this is much, well think
again... It's 10 percent on the NETTO-price !!! Our country gets a nice 20.5 %
on the selling-price (that is without import-taxes they already got)... Consider
how much camera's I have to sell just to get my rent payed...
For 'professional photographers' se above.
I guess this leaves us with the camera manufacturers... I think they are the
only ones who take the big $$$, as you put it.
This is my conclusion, but of course I live in Belgium, and I don't know how
things are in other countrys, but I reccon they are not that much different then
here (and if it's true that professional photographers make huge proffits in the
USA, I'll have to migrate I guess)...
Rudi
x93...@wmich.edu
Tanvir writes...
> Why they should not hang on to the negatives? They are not working
> for hire only as a contractor.
Aren't they? Why are they being paid then?!
> They images are copyrighted. Why they should give up their rights
> when some wrong trend is in progress?
Not saying they should... as in the pictures end up with someone else's
name as the photographer. But some stock agencies and magazines require
***ORIGINALS*** of slides taken by pros... are these pros giving up
their rights?!
> Of course you can come up with hundred of examples of wrong doings of
> photographer.
True.
> Photographer can come up with thousands of examples too where the
> couple try to ditch them.
By taking the negatives and running away before payment? Don't give
the negatives till the bill is settled... fair enough?
> That still does not mean that photographer and couple should (and in
> our argument the photographer right of owning the negatives) give up
> their respective rights.
What is the couple paying the photographer big bucks for? If some
agencies/magazines can obtain the original slides, why can't the couple
keep the negatives?!
Truth is, this isn't about photographers rights here... its about
their practices. Okay, so they want to keep the negatives for copyright
reasons... then do so till the couple's family... siblings, children,
grandchildren, etc. are all gone. And provide cheap reprints when
requested... of course the quality control then goes, or custom reprints.
Fair enough?!
Truth is, the photographer is out to make extra money, and care nothing
about copyright... look deeper, and $$$ is all that counts. Give a
photographer enough $$$$$$ and he/she will part with the negatives,
slides, whatever.
Adrian Chew :)
x93...@wmich.edu
Mark writes...
> Right. You can shoot an artistic shot of the Rwanda events or you can
> shoot a non-artistic technically perfect shot. Either way, you still
> have to produce a good picture for your editor if they asked you to
> come up with pictures for the front page.
What is good? The editor might want a shot that evokes emotion, rather
than plain technical perfect. He'll use your shot, but don't bet on
getting such an important assignment next time... if your shots aren't
artistic enough.
> Try forgetting to take a shot of key parts of the wedding
> and you'll have one pair of pissed off clients. You can take
> artistic wedding shots but you do not do it at the cost of
> missing or distorting other key shots.
Here's where the pro needs to know the subject matter well. Artistic and
yet not missing key shots... its very possible. Just need to be in the
right position at the right time for the right shot. Get a wedding
photographer & a photojournalist to cover a wedding... you'll get the
key moments from both, but certainly one set of shots will be more
artistic.
> It seems to me that in this case you want some cultural shots
> rather than the standard wedding scenario that we're talking
> about. Sure, take those romantic shots of other culture's
> wedding ceremonies. Satisfy your romantic fantasies in those
> cases.
Just an example... that you can approach the same subject differently.
> But if a couple hires you to take pictures of their wedding,
> you will have to move your ass and shoot the key parts of the
> wedding, romantic or unromantic, spectacular or not.
And someone really knowing how to do it will get the best artistic
images, not just snapshots of each moment.
> Artistic talent will separate the great wedding pros from the
> merely technically proficient pro. But the minimum requirement
> for both types is that they can take pictures. Both will have
> to shoot the cutting of the cake, the first dance, the tossing
> of the boquet, etc...
Exactly. But who wants a technically proficient pro with dull results?
> That depends on why you say they're great. Is it because
> the pictures are artistic or is it because the subject
> themselves are spectacular ? The two can come together
> of course, but too many critics cannot differentiate
> between spectacular subjects and spectacular photos
> ...
True... but in many NG photos, very regular & unspectular subjects
have been documented in very artistic ways. There are of course the
spectular subjects to, but its the unspectular ones that they bring
to life so vividly that captures my attention.
> Do yourself a favor. If you ever get married, don't hire
> a wedding photographer. Save yourself and the pro the
> aggravation.
Wasn't planning to.
Adrian Chew :)
x93...@wmich.edu
Bhiksha Raj...
> Anyway..
> I think it is possible (within limitations) to be both artistic and
> docmuentary while taking a photograph.
Just the point I was stating.
> You could take all the photographs a wedding warrants AND try to have them
> as artistic as possible. If one is reasonably familiar with the wedding
> routine, one could attempt to compose the photographs for the best possible
> results. I guess that would be the difference between a picture that
> simply documents the event and a picture that evokes nostalgia.
Exactly.
> I'm no expert at this, but I figure the pros have a better shot at this
> kind of stuff, simply because they have worked at so many more weddings
> and know what kind of situations to expect and what angles give the best
> pictures. That is, of course, provided they have their heads screwed on
> right.
Most pros do (or should anwyay) arrive early to check out the site, they
also attend the mock (practice) ceremony if there is one. This all helps
being at the right place at the right time.
Adrian Chew :)
YuNoHoo
:
: Tanvir writes...
: > Why they should not hang on to the negatives? They are not working
: > for hire only as a contractor.
:
: Aren't they? Why are they being paid then?!
They're paid for the work and material, not to produce some negative.
Usually the contract specifies a fixed number of copies and the charge
for each extra copy.
: > They images are copyrighted. Why they should give up their rights
: > when some wrong trend is in progress?
:
: Not saying they should... as in the pictures end up with someone else's
: name as the photographer. But some stock agencies and magazines require
: ***ORIGINALS*** of slides taken by pros... are these pros giving up
: their rights?!
Well, some agencies _represent_ the photographer. Anyway, sometimes
the photographer does sell the exclusive rights to use some work and
may give away an original slide or a negative.
: > That still does not mean that photographer and couple should (and in
: > our argument the photographer right of owning the negatives) give up
: > their respective rights.
:
: What is the couple paying the photographer big bucks for? If some
: agencies/magazines can obtain the original slides, why can't the couple
: keep the negatives?!
You've asked this before. The photographer get the copyright, he may
want to control the quality of the work and be sure any copyright
notice is printed on every copy.
: Truth is, the photographer is out to make extra money, and care nothing
: about copyright... look deeper, and $$$ is all that counts. Give a
: photographer enough $$$$$$ and he/she will part with the negatives,
: slides, whatever.
Sure, usually this extra $$$ is specified in the contract when you
hire the photographer. You're free to hire any other photographer
if you don't like the conditions.
Another thing is that you probably have the right to deny the pics
being used for any other purpose.
---
Haakon Styri
Tanvir...@transarc.com
> Tanvir writes...
>> Why they should not hang on to the negatives? They are not working
>> for hire only as a contractor.
> Aren't they? Why are they being paid then?!
No they are certainly not working for hire. Check out the definition
of work for hire and contractor. I am sure that you have some
confusion about work for hire and contractor. Who pay the social
security tax? Who pays for the benifits? Who pay for the retirment?
Who withhold the federal, state and local taxes? Who pays for the
worksman compensation? The couple certainly does not do any of the
above or have someone do it on the behalf of photographer.
> But some stock agencies and magazines require ***ORIGINALS*** of
> slides taken by pros... are these pros giving up their rights?!
So does that makes work for hire? Of course agencies require original
but does't the photographer get money on the reuse of them each time?
Is it not true that photograhper can call back a slide? Of course
sometimes a photographer is so starving that the transfer the complete
rights to a immage but it is done by contract. Unlike news paper
reporters (for example) where a paper have hired them so the images
belong to the paper not photographer (I believe thats it I understand,
please correct me if I am wrong).
> Truth is, the photographer is out to make extra money, and care nothing
> about copyright... look deeper, and $$$ is all that counts. Give a
> photographer enough $$$$$$ and he/she will part with the negatives,
> slides, whatever.
Yes this is about money. Copyright laws are primarly based on $$$.
So thugs can't rip of the original creator. So what photographer is
doing by inisisting on exercising their right?. Trying to claim the
maximum possible share of $$$ rightfully belong to them.
Tanvir
Robert Slugg
For those who want the negs right off the bat, I do that as well. They
get the film at the end of the wedding to do with as they wish. My price
is the same though. What I lose in profits from sales I make up in
reduced production costs and labor. No one has taken me up on this, I
wonder why?
In September, the Maryland Professional Photographers will be having a print
competition. I can bring a couple of people as guests. Anyone who wants
to see what the real thing looks like should email me. The meeting is
the third Wednesday in Beltsville (NW DC).
Bob
--
Robert M. Slugg Meyer 5-109 Johns Hopkins Hospital fax (410) 955-1032
x93...@wmich.edu
Tanvir writes...
> Yes this is about money. Copyright laws are primarly based on $$$.
> So thugs can't rip of the original creator. So what photographer is
> doing by inisisting on exercising their right?. Trying to claim the
> maximum possible share of $$$ rightfully belong to them.
Nothing wrong by the law. But practically & morally, laws aren't always
right. Wonder why so many people hate the IRS... even though they play
a vital role... the gov't need money to run the country.
Personally I can't care less what the copyright laws say. Its more abused
now to charge extra $$$ than it is to protect the original creator. Who
says laws and rights are always good?
Adrian Chew :)
x93...@wmich.edu
Rudi writes...
> Sorry, I have to react to this. As a professional photographer (this
> means I have to make a living out of photography) I keep all the negatives
> of the weddings I do. This is not because I want to 'charge a lot' for
> reprints (for reprints, I charge the same as a costumer would pay for a
> professional reprint of his own negatives), but for some other reasons :
I understand your response. Too bad it isn't the same here in the US.
> 1. I've made the photo's, and I have the copyrights to all the photo's
Some people genuinely care about copyright like in your case, others just
abuse it to gain extra $$$.
> 2. If I make a reprint, I know it will be done in a professional way, so
> the pictures will be 'good'. If I should give away the negatives, anybody
> could make a reprint and (as everybody knows) not all printing shops do a
> good job...
Good reason.
> 3. I don't know how much a 'wedding' is charged for elsewhere, but due to
> the fact that there are a lot of photographers in Belgium (especialy in
> here in Limburg), and due to the fact there are a lot of non-professional
> photographers, prices of a complete wedding coverage are about 15.000,- BFr
> (+/ - 450 US$). If you take in account all the costs I have (camera,
> films, filmdevelopment, prints, enlargements, album, driving to and
> from...) and the time I have to spend making the coverage and composing
> the album, you might guess that I don't earn a lot on such a reportage...
> So I think I have the right to have something on the reprints as well...
Here's where the difference counts. A lot of countries have very low rates
for wedding photography... but in the US, what you're charging would be
considered absolutely absurd. And the US also has very good access to
equipment at low costs.
> Another thing, you don't expect to get the negatives for a portrait, do
> you? So why should it be different wedding photo's ?
Because these are much more memorable than a portrait.
To clear the other points, I'm mentioning specifically about practices
in the US only... the variables are different in other countries. And
yes, its probably true... the people here are getting fat & rich, but
I wouldn't want to live here forever... I can't wait to return home
where I'll earn peanuts pay compared to working here.
Adrian Chew :)
z_mcda...@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
buncha deleted stuff here...
>
> Truth is, the photographer is out to make extra money, and care nothing
> about copyright... look deeper, and $$$ is all that counts. Give a
> photographer enough $$$$$$ and he/she will part with the negatives,
> slides, whatever.
>
> Adrian Chew :)
wrong... i rently discussed this with another pro int ttown over a beer or
two...
and had to discuss it this weekend with a cuple...
i make enough on reprints to pay for my gas to the lab and back if i'm taking
in a buncha reprints... (and i drive a datsun! good gas mileage)
the main reason i keep 'em is quality control... that way, when the couple is
off in B.F.E. and shows the prints and says so&so shot our wedding, i know
the prints they are showing are up to my standards...
i've had people at the lab SHOW me my photos when a client brought them in
to have copies made, and although it was copyright infringement, (they shoulda
payed attention when i explained my contract), it would be more of a hassle
to press charges or seek compensation than it's worth...
having friends at the lab is good... they put work like that off, and royally
screw it up when they do it... nice friends! =)
i'm keeping up with bunchas of negs here, and man, that is a bitch...
but i'm far too anal about the quality of the work that leaves my hands and has
my name on it...
later...
cody
dfa...@vnet.ibm.com
> (cut)
>Truth is, this isn't about photographers rights here... its about
>their practices. Okay, so they want to keep the negatives for copyright
>reasons... then do so till the couple's family... siblings, children,
>grandchildren, etc. are all gone. And provide cheap reprints when
>requested... of course the quality control then goes, or custom
>reprints. Fair enough?!
>
>Truth is, the photographer is out to make extra money, and care nothing
>about copyright... look deeper, and $$$ is all that counts. Give a
>photographer enough $$$$$$ and he/she will part with the negatives,
>slides, whatever.
One of the wedding photographers we visited when shopping around
would have given us all the negatives. His work was fair; nothing
really to complain about or to write home about. His prices were
pretty low (including the negatives). The photographers we chose
charged quite a bit more, and kept the negatives. And the results
were worth it - they do their own processing and printing, and must
have put in tons of time, to the point where I would agree that they
don't really make much money from shooting the wedding. It all
comes from sales afterward.
They also told us that they keep the negatives indefinitely, and
consider them assets of the business. Should they ever sell the
business, the negatives are going to be a valuable part of that sale -
possible revenue for whoever buys them. It's no more slimy than what
anyone else does to make a living. Just selling a service and charging
what the market will bear. Slimy businesses tend to go under (except
for Cambridge Cameras ;-).
- Dennis
sax...@hwsys.com
Rudi writes...
> 3. I don't know how much a 'wedding' is charged for elsewhere, but due to
> the fact that there are a lot of photographers in Belgium (especialy in
> here in Limburg), and due to the fact there are a lot of non-professional
> photographers, prices of a complete wedding coverage are about 15.000,- BFr
> (+/ - 450 US$). If you take in account all the costs I have (camera,
> films, filmdevelopment, prints, enlargements, album, driving to and
> from...) and the time I have to spend making the coverage and composing
> the album, you might guess that I don't earn a lot on such a reportage...
> So I think I have the right to have something on the reprints as well...
ACHEW-> Here's where the difference counts. A lot of countries have very
ACHEW-> low rates for wedding photography... but in the US, what you're
ACHEW-> charging would be considered absolutely absurd. And the US also
ACHEW-> has very good access to equipment at low costs.
Just what do you mean by "absurd" Mr. Chew ? How much do you
think the average overall cost of a wedding package runs here in
the US ? Do you think is price is high or low in comparison
ACHEW-> To clear the other points, I'm mentioning specifically about
ACHEW-> practices in the US only... the variables are different in other
ACHEW-> countries. And yes, its probably true... the people here are
ACHEW-> getting fat & rich, but I wouldn't want to live here forever... I
ACHEW-> can't wait to return home where I'll earn peanuts pay compared to
ACHEW-> working here.
Yes ... we are getting fat and rich ....... and we're choking on
our own pollution .....clogging our arteries with fat ...killing
each other off with stress and in some cases weapons ....overall
our quality of life is lower and our lifespan is getting to be
shorter than most of the developed world now. I guess that's the
price we pay for being "too greedy".
Adrian Chew :)
Douglas W Gouty
^^^^^^ Yea, but you would have to offer me MUCH more money than it
would cost you to buy the prints from me to get me to sell you the negatives.
The negatives are worth much more to me than what you pay for in the cost of
reprints. They are valuable to me in many more ways than simply the cost of
of the film and my time involved. IE. An associate of mine shot the wedding
of Les Wexner, the owner and founder of many different retail clothing outlets.
Les is one of the richest men in america. Brain (the photographer) would not
sell the negs to Les at any resonable price. Even $10K, B.C. the value to his
business went far beyond that figure, the sample shot of Les's wedding that is
on the wall of his studio is worth far more than 10K to his business. Les
would have had to pay ME if I were the photographer in this case more than
$200,000 for the negs. Some things are just not worth it. Learn something
about business before you make wide sweeping comments like that.
A customer would have to offer me more than $10K for the negs to an average
wedding. For me to lose controll of the negs and my reputation as a
photographer would be very hard for me to do. Who knows what would happen to
the damm negs after they leave my posesson. If they were printed badly and
it got around that I was a poor photographer B.C. of it, that could ruin me.
My reputation as a pro of good quality is PRICELESS to me. You couldn't pay my
price.
Douglas Gouty
Photographer W/ 10 yrs exp
--
Tar is not a play thing..I will not steal school property..Spit balls are not
free speach..I will not bribe principal Skinner..I will not Xerox(tm) my butt
.I will not teach others to fly..I will not do that thing with my tongue..BART
I'm dgo...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu(Douglas W. Gouty), Who the hell are you???
x93...@wmich.edu
Robert writes...
> People will pay for the pictures they want, and for weddings they rarely
> want abstract artistic vision. An artist should shoot pictures for
> themselves, and a wedding is not the place to do that, unless you're
> there as a guest.
I didn't mean abstract, but nevertheless, artistic. You can take
different angles, get different compositions of the same shot, use
different lighting setups, and so on. It can be a technically perfect
snapshot, or it can be technically perfect plus artistic... good
choice of DOF control, background, and especially, the decisive moment.
> Artistic wedding photographers (by artistic I mean people who shoot
> pictures the customer probably doesn't want and won't buy) have a half
> life of about a year. If Adrian thinks his way is so superior, then he
> is free to go into business and put the rest of us out on the street.
> The fact that he hasn't leads me to believe it is unsubstantiated
> speculation on his part that this type of photography is viable. I do
> take some artistic shots at weddings, but only after the bread and butter
> work has been finished.
All I'm saying is, your bread & butter can be artistic. Not in the abstract
sense of it, but in catching the right moment, with good composition. Now,
which would your clients rather have... a picture that creates nostalgia
because it involved artistry, or a dull record on wedding.
Anyone can shoot a wedding, but a pro should be the one to do the job
right with artistry. And remember, art can mean many different things,
in this case, it is about composition & the right moment.
Your definition of artistic is very different from what I had in mind.
All I'm trying to point out is that there is a difference between
technical perfection and photographic excellence.
Another note, please do not confuse this with my earlier example, I
chose something more abstract, as in photographing other culture's
weddings. But in reality, take any culture's wedding, and you can
take an artistic record or a dull one. Some pros have to deal with
different cultural weddings in a multi-racial population.
Adrian Chew :)